SAWPA OWOW 2.0 PROJECT RANKING PROCESS December 6, 2012.

Slides:



Advertisements
Similar presentations
Modellistica e Gestione dei Sistemi Ambientali A tool for multicriteria analysis: The Analytic Hierarchy Process Chiara Mocenni University of.
Advertisements

5/30/2014 Aosta, May 24th 2012 SESAMO: a decision support system for the Multi Criteria Analysis Fiorella GRASSO, Stefano MARAN (PP3) Project Final Meeting.
WATER FOR THE 21 st CENTURY ECONOMY AND ENVIRONMENT Santa Ana River Watershed Conference April 11, 2013.
Cognitive Modelling – An exemplar-based context model Benjamin Moloney Student No:
Water Quality Trading Claire Schary Water Quality Trading Coordinator U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 10, Seattle, WA Region 10, Seattle,
Accountability preview Major Mindshift Out with the Old – In with the New TEPSA - May 2013 (Part 2) Ervin Knezek John Fessenden
Hawawini & VialletChapter 7© 2007 Thomson South-Western Chapter 7 ALTERNATIVES TO THE NET PRESENT VALUE RULE.
Project Ranking Results Presented at the 8 th Stakeholder Meeting Hal Bryson, EEP Western Watershed Planner January 12th, 2010.
September 2005Urban Planning Carleton University 1 Evaluation of Urban Plans _________________________.
Chapter 4: Image Enhancement
Methodological Proposal for the Evaluation of the Relevance and Scope of Indicators of Social Programs Gilberto Moncada Consultant Banco Mundial Noviembre.
Creating a Sustainability Index for Water Planning in Southern California Presented at: AWWA ACE-09 June 18, 2009 Dan Rodrigo Vice President CDM 523 West.
Expedited Projects + Innovative Teamwork = Measurable Improvements to the Health of Lake Okeechobee and the St. Lucie and Caloosahatchee Estuaries.
Selecting Preservation Strategies for Web Archives Stephan Strodl, Andreas Rauber Department of Software.
Copyright © 2006 Pearson Education Canada Inc Course Arrangement !!! Nov. 22,Tuesday Last Class Nov. 23,WednesdayQuiz 5 Nov. 25, FridayTutorial 5.
INFM 718A / LBSC 705 Information For Decision Making
Life Cycle Assessment Overview of LCA and Methodology October 30, 2012.
Biomass Carbon Neutrality in the Context of Forest-based Fuels and Products Al Lucier, NCASI Reid Miner, NCASI
Tom Singleton Associate VP, Director, Integrated Water Resources an Atkins company Linking TMDLs & Environmental Restoration.
© 2014 by McGraw-Hill Education. This is proprietary material solely for authorized instructor use. Not authorized for sale or distribution in any manner.
1 Brainstorming for Presentation of Variability in Current Practices Scenario B. Contor August 2007.
September 16-18, 2014 NSSC, Lincoln, NE Part III.
1 CRP 834: Decision Analysis Week Eight Notes. 2 Plan Evaluation Methods Monetary-based technique Financial Investment Appraisal Cost-effective analysis.
Chapter Eight The Concept of Measurement and Attitude Scales
1 1 Slide © 2004 Thomson/South-Western Chapter 17 Multicriteria Decisions n Goal Programming n Goal Programming: Formulation and Graphical Solution and.
Chapter 6 : Software Metrics
Decision Making Matrix
Roles of Economists and New Analytical Requirements
STATE WATER EFFICIENCY AND ENHANCEMENT PROGRAM Jenny Lester Moffitt Deputy Secretary.
Introduction A GENERAL MODEL OF SYSTEM OPTIMIZATION.
Watershed Hydrology Modeling: What is Considered Calibrated? Presented by: Jeremy Wyss, HIT Tetra Tech Presented by: Jeremy Wyss, HIT Tetra Tech 27 th.
Phase II WIP Background & Development Process Tri-County Council – Eastern Shore June 2,
Introduction to GREAT for ELs Office of Student Assessment Wisconsin Department of Public Instruction (608)
Integrated Regional Water Management MAY 22, 2015 TRACIE BILLINGTON DEPARTMENT OF WATER RESOURCES 1.
Selecting the Best Regional Sequestration Options Dick Rhudy EPRI WESTCARB Annual Meeting October 27-28, 2004 Portland Oregon.
Copyright © 1994 Carnegie Mellon University Disciplined Software Engineering - Lecture 3 1 Software Size Estimation I Material adapted from: Disciplined.
ERCOT Planning WMS 10/20/2010 Target Reserve Margin and Effective Load Carrying Capability of Installed Wind Capacity for the ERCOT System – Methodology.
6/2/2016Slide 1 To extend the comparison of population means beyond the two groups tested by the independent samples t-test, we use a one-way analysis.
Bay Area IRWMP Project Review Process Stakeholder Workshop #1 Association of Bay Area Governments July 23, 2012 Carl Morrison.
Disciplined Software Engineering Lecture #3 Software Engineering Institute Carnegie Mellon University Pittsburgh, PA Sponsored by the U.S. Department.
PERFORMANCE BASED COMPENSATION UPDATE ON THE PROGRAM TO REVISE PROVIDENCE PRINCIPALS’ COMPENSATION IN
Multi-Criteria Analysis - preference weighting. Defining weights for criteria Purpose: to express the importance of each criterion relative to other criteria.
To accompany Quantitative Analysis for Management, 9e \by Render/Stair/Hanna M1-1 © 2006 by Prentice Hall, Inc. Upper Saddle River, NJ Analytic Hierarchy.
VGreen: A System for Energy Efficient Manager in Virtualized Environments G. Dhiman, G Marchetti, T Rosing ISLPED 2009.
Cooperating Partners Presentation October 12, 2006 Integrated Regional Water Management Plan (IRWMP) B S Strategies and Objectives C ANTA ARBARA OUNTY.
Software Architecture Evaluation Methodologies Presented By: Anthony Register.
California Water Plan Update Advisory Committee Meeting January 20, 2005.
Overview of the Total Maximum Daily Load Program.
One Water LA is a collaborative approach to develop an integrated framework for managing the City’s watersheds, water resources, and water facilities in.
Final Report | BDK84 TWO# March 2010 Center for Urban Transportation Research University of South Florida.
MCE: Criteria Development and the Boolean Approach Exercise 2-7.
Exploratory data analysis, descriptive measures and sampling or, “How to explore numbers in tables and charts”
ESTIMATING WEIGHT Course: Special Topics in Remote Sensing & GIS Mirza Muhammad Waqar Contact: EXT:2257 RG712.
PSY 325 AID Education Expert/psy325aid.com FOR MORE CLASSES VISIT
CHANNEL ISLANDS BEACH COMMUNITY SERVICES DISTRICT
Analysis Manager Training Module
Physician Performance Measures: Like It Or Not?
Project Management – PTM721S
Supplement S7 Supplier Selection.
A Scoring Model for Job Selection
Knowing your math operation terms
Decision Matrices Business Economics.
Chapter 6 Indexes, Scales, And Typologies
Introduction to Multi Criteria Analysis MCA
Decision Making Template.
Agenda for This Week Monday, April 25 AHP Wednesday, April 27
Chapter 14: Decision Making Considering Multiattributes
CATEGORY ONE Enter category name on this slide..
Multicriteria Decision Making
Understanding How the Ranking is Calculated
Presentation transcript:

SAWPA OWOW 2.0 PROJECT RANKING PROCESS December 6, 2012

Multi-Step Project Ranking Process 1.OWOW Steering Committee developed five criteria and weights and eight performance measures  Criteria equally weighted at 20% each (each criteria can contribute a maximum of 20% of the overall project score) 2.Project applicants submitted data to SAWPA 3.Project data initially reviewed for data entry errors by SAWPA 4.Scales developed and data normalized for each criteria 5.Data entered into Criterium Decision Plus (CDP) software and scored for each project 6.Results sorted into three tiers

Criterium Decision Plus Software  CDP software developed by InfoHarvest utilized to develop initial project tiers  CDP uses a multi-attribute rating technique o Methodology involves 1)Defining the evaluation criteria for comparison between alternatives 2)Developing performance measures indicating when a criterion is achieved 3)Determining the relative weight of importance that each criterion has in terms of influencing the decision

Criteria 1 – Improve Water Reliability and Reduce Reliance on Imported Water 1.AFY yields summed for each project:  Water use efficiency  Stormwater capture and storage  Recycled water reuse  Groundwater desalination  Other 2.Multiplied maximum AFY by 110% - maximum bookend Example: Maximum summed AFY = 100 Maximum scale = 110 (100 x 110%) 3.Minimum scale set to 0 4.Projects with higher values receive higher scores for Criteria 1 5.Resultant values entered into CDP

Criteria 2 – Improve Water Quality and Salt Balance in the Watershed 1.Three categories of data contribute to criteria score:  Non-point source reduction (mgd)  Reduction of TMDLs and other pollutants (kg/year)  Salt removal (tons/year) 2.Data normalized on scale of 1 to 5 for each category  1 = worst  5 = best  Data for each category with a value greater than 0 was divided into quartiles to facilitate developing ranges for the scale 3.Normalized data summed together by project across the three categories

Criteria 2 – Continued 4.Summed data adjusted by subtracting 2 to ensure projects with values of 1 in each category receive an overall value of 1, resultant values entered into CDP 5.Summed values greater than 5 capped at 5 Example: Normalized Values Criteria Score Salt Removal Nonpoint SourceTMDL & OtherSum Project Project Project

Criteria 3 – Manage Flood Waters Through Preservation and Restoration of Natural Hydrology 1.Three performance measures with varying weights:  3a - Acres of habitat created (acres), weight 60%  3b - Natural hydrology restoration and connectivity, weight 20%  3c - LID or resource efficient land use practices, weight 20% 2.3a assigned weight of 60% as provides greatest benefit to criteria 3.When a criteria has multiple performance measures resultant data for each performance measure is entered into CDP

Criteria 3 – Performance Measure 3a 1.Acres of habitat performance measure – developed using same methodology as Criteria 1 2.Maximum bookend = 110% of maximum data value 3.Minimum bookend = 0

Criteria 3 – Performance Measures 3b and 3c 1.Data for performance measures 3b and 3c consists of yes/no answers to whether the project provides the applicable benefit and a description of the benefit  1 = answer provided was no and no explanation  2 = answer provided was yes and no explanation or explanation not applicable  5 = answer provided was yes and logical explanation provided 2.Scale of 1 to 5 used  1 = worst  5 = best

Criteria 4 – Reduce Greenhouse Gas Emissions from Water Management Activities 1.Data normalized on scale of 1 to 5 for greenhouse emissions (co 2 e metric tons)  1 = worst  5 = best  Data > 10,000 co 2 e metric tons assigned a score of 5  Data with a value greater than 0 and less than 10,000 co 2 e metric tons was divided into quartiles to facilitate developing ranges for the scale 2.Normalized data entered into CDP

Criteria 5 – Cost Effectiveness 1.Criteria is composed of five components evaluating the cost effectiveness on a per unit basis per year for each benefit claimed:  5a - Cost per AFY of water  5b - Cost per acre of habitat  5c - Cost per tons of salt removed  5d - Cost per mgd of water treated  5e – Cost per kg of TMDL or other pollutants removed 2.Data normalized on scale of 1 to 5 for each component  1 = worst  5 = best  Data for each component with a value greater than 0 was divided into quartiles to facilitate developing ranges for the scale  Data for a component with a value of 0 received a score of 1

Criteria 5 – Continued 3.Normalized values for each component summed together and divided by 5 to arrive at cost effectiveness score 4.Data entered into CDP Normalized Values Criteria Score Cost per AFY of Water Cost per Acre of habitat Cost per Ton of Salt Removed Cost per MGD of Water Treated Cost per kg of TMDL or Other Pollutant RemovalSum Project Project Project

Results  Tiers developed using natural breaks in resultant project scores from CDP o Tier 1 - Projects closely matching the OWOW project criteria  100% match to 22% match of the OWOW project criteria  33 projects o Tier 2 - Projects that match OWOW project criteria in some respects, but have deficiencies in areas  21% match to a 5% match of the OWOW project criteria  54 projects o Tier 3 – Projects that provide lesser benefits than projects in Tier 1 or Tier 2 or projects earlier in development phase or benefits cannot be determined at this time  4% to 0% match of the OWOW project criteria  49 projects

Results - Continued  Example on following slide illustrates overall contribution of each criteria for three hypothetical projects and provides a total score for each project based on output from CDP o Maximum score is 1 (100%) overall and 20% for each criteria

Results – Continued